Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit

[Lumber]

LMAO; absolutely perfect.

I'd be more gagging about the 10% who can't keep up with the 55 YO RSM.

Then please don't come with your 55 y.o. RSM to a Navy FORCE test. You'll down right choke to death when you see how many of us wouldn't be able to keep up with him.

 

[ballz]

Well then, 10% of the battalion should be freakin' ashamed of themselves....

The old boys clubs of the army should be ashamed of itself for ever letting these kind of people represent us as best we have to offer. The (at the time) DSM of 2 RCR failed the FORCE test when it first came out (and wasn't, that year if you remember, the required physical test across the CAF), right before getting promoted to CWO. I suppose you've got some witty retort to excuse that, too?

Give me a fucking break with the excuses as to why we can't have fit CSMs and RSMs to lead troops. The old boys club sure doesn't need something like age/gender category to encourage it to keep moving their own buddies forward while the relatively young, fit, eager and capable pers are forced to wait until they are also old, slow, and don't care anymore. So why encourage it?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'll give you a witty retort............if I'm in the OP all I give a flying rats ass about is that the ammo is at the gun position and the troops are disciplined and fed enough to give me the fire power when and where I need it.

This is what I want......when I was a M/Bdr I certainly did not expect to see the RSM/ BSM running with us, [if he wanted to then great] but leading the troops, which included fitness, was MY job,.......and he led the rank higher that led me.

 

[armyvern]

I'll give you a witty retort............if I'm in the OP all I give a flying rats ass about is that the ammo is at the gun position and the troops are disciplined and fed enough to give me the fire power when and where I need it.

This is what I want......when I was a M/Bdr I certainly did not expect to see the RSM/ BSM running with us, [if he wanted to then great] but leading the troops, which included fitness, was MY job,.......and he led the rank higher that led me.

Bingo.

 

[BinRat55]

The (at the time) DSM of 2 RCR failed the FORCE test when it first came out (and wasn't, that year if you remember, the required physical test across the CAF), right before getting promoted to CWO. I suppose you've got some witty retort to excuse that, too?

Just an interesting aside, but every fitness test I have seen instituted with a time constraint, I have heard the time was lowered (or raised) due to some high ranking officer NOT being able to meet it. For example, the Gen Waters competition - we were told that it was originally supposed to be 10 miles in 2 hours, but some General in Edmonton did it in 2:30... so we had to do it in 2:40. The Warrior competition - that 3.2Km run for gold? Yea, apparently it was 19 mins to pass until a General couldn't do it in under 24 so then we had 25 mins...

What do they call it? Urban legend?

 

[Arty39]

Just an interesting aside, but every fitness test I have seen instituted with a time constraint, I have heard the time was lowered (or raised) due to some high ranking officer NOT being able to meet it. For example, the Gen Waters competition - we were told that it was originally supposed to be 10 miles in 2 hours, but some General in Edmonton did it in 2:30... so we had to do it in 2:40. The Warrior competition - that 3.2Km run for gold? Yea, apparently it was 19 mins to pass until a General couldn't do it in under 24 so then we had 25 mins...

What do they call it? Urban legend?

3.2km run in 19 minutes is not a fast time at all.

 

[ballz]

when I was a M/Bdr I certainly did not expect to see the RSM/ BSM running with us, [if he wanted to then great] but leading the troops, which included fitness, was MY job,.......and he led the rank higher that led me.

There is obviously some hurt feelings about the idea that someone's fitness might actually make them ineffective at their job, even if they have a ton of experience, but that is reality. So at what rank does "lead from the front" give way to "do as I say, not as I do?" Do you really think it would be acceptable for someone in a leadership position, whether an Officer or a Warrant Officer, to say "pfff fitness? that's a Sgt or MCpls job." Our troops expect more of their leadership, as they should.

What do they call it? Urban legend?

I'm not sure what the point of this post is except to insinuate that I'm either telling tales or perpetuating myths. Either which way, I could care less if everyone wants to bury their head in the sand about it, I was at the unit when it happened and it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month(until someone else screwed up, as per SOP).

 

[dapaterson]

3.2km run in 19 minutes is not a fast time at all.

With FFO?

 

[Journeyman]

..... it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month.

Oh, go on, most of 2CMBG doesn't even know there's a 2nd Bn.    >

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

There is obviously some hurt feelings about the idea that someone's fitness might actually make them ineffective at their job, even if they have a ton of experience, but that is reality. So at what rank does "lead from the front" give way to "do as I say, not as I do?" Do you really think it would be acceptable for someone in a leadership position, whether an Officer or a Warrant Officer, to say "pfff fitness? that's a Sgt or MCpls job." Our troops expect more of their leadership, as they should.

I'm not sure what the point of this post is except to insinuate that I'm either telling tales or perpetuating myths. Either which way, I could care less if everyone wants to bury their head in the sand about it, I was at the unit when it happened and it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month(until someone else screwed up, as per SOP).

You need to be more specific perhaps. There are lots of jobs in the army that dont need specifically high levels of fitness... doctors, dentists, pharmacists, clerks, sup techs, avn techs, etc etc.

If you're just talking about an inf Bn than offset that.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

There is obviously some hurt feelings about the idea that someone's fitness might actually make them ineffective at their job, even if they have a ton of experience, but that is reality.

PROOF RIGHT NOW!!!
Cough it up .............

So at what rank does "lead from the front" give way to "do as I say, not as I do?" Do you really think it would be acceptable for someone in a leadership position, whether an Officer or a Warrant Officer, to say "pfff fitness? that's a Sgt or MCpls job." Our troops expect more of their leadership, as they should.

I guess you do everyone's job in your outfit??  Sgt's and M/Cpl's are just there for show???  Don't worry, someday you will be trusted with more then one thing to worry about, maybe. >

I'm not sure what the point of this post is except to insinuate that I'm either telling tales or perpetuating myths. Either which way, I could care less if everyone wants to bury their head in the sand about it, I was at the unit when it happened and it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month(until someone else screwed up, as per SOP).

Don't know, don't care......the military hasn't been my circus or my monkeys for a long time.
I do know that if I had ever let one 'funny' incident torment me like that then my 10 years would have seemed like an eternity....

 

[BinRat55]

With FFO?

Yes - the 3.2 run was FFO (with weapon) so, yea - 19 mins was a bit difficult. Not impossible mind you - I was with a guy (Vern knows him as "Clutch") who managed it in 15.

 

[BinRat55]

I'm not sure what the point of this post is except to insinuate that I'm either telling tales or perpetuating myths. Either which way, I could care less if everyone wants to bury their head in the sand about it, I was at the unit when it happened and it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month(until someone else screwed up, as per SOP).

Of course not - I said "interesting aside"... I know the DCO to which you are refering.

 

[Journeyman]

I've GOT to read more slowly.  I seriously stumbled at...

.... I was with a guy (Vern....

   

Now, I don't claim to be an expert at anatomy & physiology, but.....


[I now return you to your bi-polar, 'all or nothing' discussion of fitness.  )

 

[BinRat55]

I've GOT to read more slowly.  I seriously stumbled at...   

Now, I don't claim to be an expert at anatomy & physiology, but.....


[I now return you to your bi-polar, 'all or nothing' discussion of fitness.  )

Lol - You now have ME at a loss here - I once ran the 3.2 with a guy named Clutch. Vern knows him well... I DID place a bracket around this...

 

[ballz]

Oh, go on, most of 2CMBG doesn't even know there's a 2nd Bn.    >

Well, I can't argue against a fact....

PROOF RIGHT NOW!!!
Cough it up .............

Can't tell how serious you are being at this point, but the fact that we have established BFORs (the FORCE test) is proof. We can literally go to court and say "because this person couldn't achieve x,y,z, he is not capable of doing his job anymore and therefore was released."

That's without adding in that in a leadership position, part of your job description being to "lead," you can't "lead" in the physical fitness aspect if you can't make it out of the parking lot on a group run.

I guess you do everyone's job in your outfit??

Wtf are you even talking about?

Don't know, don't care......the military hasn't been my circus or my monkeys for a long time.
I do know that if I had ever let one 'funny' incident torment me like that then my 10 years would have seemed like an eternity....

Never said its tormenting me, just a great example of someone unfit to lead or be promoted, but was promoted anyway. Since ultimately that's what the discussion is about right, how much is/should physical fitness be tied to performance and promotions?

You need to be more specific perhaps. There are lots of jobs in the army that dont need specifically high levels of fitness... doctors, dentists, pharmacists, clerks, sup techs, avn techs, etc etc.

If you're just talking about an inf Bn than offset that.

It's all relative. If we expect high levels of fitness from our subordinates, our leadership should reflect that. Aka SNCOs, WOs, and Officers should be leading from the front on that expectation. If your in a unit where physical fitness doesn't have as high an impact on your performance, and the expectation is that you have a maintain a "moderate" level of fitness, then your leadership should be at least "moderately" fit. A leader that is drastically less fit than his subordinates should be an outlier.

In neither situation should your leadership be so unfit that they lose their credibility, but be excused for it because they aren't the ones doing the lifting any more, or simply because "they're old now, so we can't expect that of them." Again, this is a results-based profession, promotions based on merit (which I keep getting told that is what they are based on, although I know better by now) would see younger, fitter people getting promoted ahead of their older counterparts long before DSMs fail a FORCE test.

Back onto the topic at hand, this points given out by age/gender category thing throws a wrench into the italicized bit.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

NO ONE is a bigger pusher of physical fitness then I.......still doing at least one Tough Mudder and a few smaller obstacle courses this summer.

SHAMELESS PLUG TIME.......http://muddygrape.com  .......I will be the volunteer directing you where to park before I go do my run.  Support Special Olympics.  SHAMLESS PLUG ENDS.

I also play competitive volleyball in the same league I have been in since 1989.  I didn't practice back then, and yet I could jump through the roof and spike at will.  Now at 55 I practice a ton, I also run and lift a whole lot more then I did in those days, but guess what?........... I am not even close to the same player I was back then.

So I guess in your eyes I can't be a leader????

 

[Lumber]

Again, this is a results-based profession, promotions based on merit (which I keep getting told that is what they are based on, although I know better by now) would see younger, fitter people getting promoted ahead of their older counterparts long before DSMs fail a FORCE test.

Back onto the topic at hand, this points given out by age/gender category thing throws a wrench into the italicized bit.

I think the reason for this is a disconnect between two different goals; we can't get our priorities straight.

On the one hand, we want the best people to get promoted. This is why we came up with the FORCE test and removed commenting about fitness from the PER. As long as you were physically fit, your promotion could be based on your actual performace. Like you said earlier, fitness acts as a multiplier. The fitter you are, the likelier you are to perform at a higher level at all time.

On the other hand, however, there is a big push from all directions to place healthy and fitness as a top priority in the CAF. While these two goals are not mutually exclusive, the way that they are implementing the new incentive program makes it lean that way. They did a survey, which you may have particpated, and asked everyone what kind of incentives we would like. Overwhelmingly, people said that they wanted PER points. Someone, somewhere, said, Ok! If this is going to get people be more active and push themselves, so be it!

And in this regard, the FORCE test incentive levels, which discriminate based on age and sex, actually do a good job. If you look at being healthy and fit as reaching toward your individual maximum potential then you have to discriminate; a female has to try a lot harder to bench press 225lbs than a male does. A 22 year old has to put in a lot less effort to maintain peak physical condition than a 55 year old; both could spend 10 hours a week at the gym, and still the 22 year old would likely be stronger and faster. Aging leads to a decline in muscle mass, as neurons supplying the muscles begin to die. Aerobic capacity declines with age, regardless of how fast you are. Maximum heart rate drops by about a beat per year.

For military-results based testing, you can't discriminate, but for health and fitness related testing, you have to. We're trying to do both at the same time and as a result, no one is happy.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I like the FORCE test. There I said it!

I can't get younger but if I can grow boobs I'll be pushing platinum.

But really having core physical activities that relate to what we could do on the job seems more relative than running rucking and push-ups.


For me as I mentioned deploying somewhere other than Wainwright or a dog and pony show would be good incentive to stay fit.  On top of that I'd be motivated if I felt the military, and though that me, wasn't treated like a business.

Mini-rant
At the beginning of this thread someone used the examples of two corporals in a defensive position.
My song and dance is that those corporals are wearing
-a shitty tacvest that's designed for coffee-shop peacekeeping missions.
-a 15-20 pound (empty) rucksack that's basically a giant kitbag on your back.
-new desert boots that are exploding at the seams after 2 weeks of garrison use.

They flew to Wainwright (or where ever) with new expensive giant mob box's that are too big to fit under a standard issue cot   new expensive mini-mob box's that are small to fit much gear. they were driven to the position in a giant MSVS which will never deploy overseas or an LSVW/MLVW which we were "replacing" 20 years ago.

They were probably fresh off another exercise and told they wouldn't be going to Wainwright but were put on at the last minute because their peers went over to the CDU with some kind of bobo and the doctors gave them a live life at own pace chit.

So if you want to give me (or dudes like me)  incentive to stay fit then issue us high quality gear designed to kick ass and not make a Canadian company $$$. Send me somewhere where fitness could be the deciding factor whether I see my family again or not. Or at least deploy me somewhere where I don't feel like my purpose is to give someone a check in the box.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think the reason for this is a disconnect between two different goals...

This is the important bit... we're trying to compare apples and oranges, and I think that it comes down to an incorrect interpretation.

On one hand we have a required skill to be completed in a required time - for everyone regardless of age and gender. This is as it should be.

On the other hand, we have a sliding scale that correlates one's performance based on biology. This is also as it should be because life is lived on a slope that goes rapidly downhill. We can reduce the angle of the slope, but we can never eliminate it.

The two things are unrelated.

While everybody must be able to do the same tasks within the give parameters is quite reasonable and just. To expect a 55 year old man or woman to be able to perform to the exact same measure at a 20 year old man or woman is nonsense.  That being said, it's entirely possible for the 55 year old to have better overall fitness even if the test times are greater than the 20 year old. Personally, I'm much more concerned about the 20 year old who can't keep up with the 55 year old than the reverse.

You think the PT test is too easy? Good for you; keep up with your fitness.

You think the PT test is too hard? Get your sh!t together or GTFO.